Configuring Constraints

 I truly enjoyed the Habraken reading this week. It was enlightening to think that we must clearly define what architecture means to our generation before we can pursue architecture to its fullest. This question is not an easy task nor do I claim to have an answer but I think truly developing what we see as values must be done before we can truly be successful at what we do.

In a world of “background buildings” and many buildings that many of us wouldn’t consider “architecture, is it not vital to us, as designers of the built environment, to establish our own values? As Laurence Anderson of MIT said: “Too bad nobody wants to design a background building.” Is there anything wrong with wanting to design a background building, and when is this okay and when does the architecture deserve more? I believe that this answer lies in the web of context and program that architecture straddles between. Honestly, I think there is a beauty to designing a successful background building – background meaning one that works so well with its context that it becomes a part or the built environment naturally (as naturally as a building can).  In many ways, this camouflage can be even more difficult than creating a new autonomous and self-centered design – as many of us are finding in our downtown Anderson High School Design. Clearly we must take a stance on whether to introduce a new language or try to respect the existing dialect – or try for a hybrid of the two.

Constraints are an architect’s best friend. Every design faces a multitude of constraints from location, client wishes, construction materials, etc. “The very idea of ‘architecture’ as a self-contained and single centered act does not apply to work in everyday environment. In reality, as architects, we operate in a continuum of design where we do our bit.” I think that the more we embrace our constraints the more successful or designs will become: considering the constraints given to us by the client in the beginning of design to the reaction of site constraints (topography, existing buildings, etc) to when we have to design construction details with preconceived products: “Industrial designers invent the kit of parts with which we play and as such an increasing impact on environmental quality.”

I am not sure if my true excitement stems from the large coffee I drank before reading this article, but I am pretty convinced of the arguments made by Habraken. I would love for someone to defend the other side of the argument or make some statements of other values that our architectural generation should defend as we “grow up” in the next three months and get the chace to design in the real world and make an impact.  I will start with some values I believe we should consider as we design (please argue or agree as you see fit):

Architecture is:

1.      PEOPLE. It Is designing with, for and about people.

2.      CONSTRAINTS. Client, contextual and construction constraints should shape and mold our design from the beginning.

3.      CONTEXT. Architecture should never be without place and should be allowed to grow from local culture, location & people.

4.      FLEXIBILITY. Architecture should be designed for the purpose of its intended use but should also consider the possibility of growth and adaptation in the future.